Most poli sci may agree with this. But when it comes to explaining federal policy change, policy historians tend to find plenty of important idiosyncratic individual-level factors. And structural factors don't explain as much policy change as we expect:
mattgrossmann.tumblr.com/artistsofthepo…
mattgrossmann.tumblr.com/artistsofthepo…
https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/status/1480164452943208451
But individual agency does not imply lack of structure. e.g. Manchin is the pivotal vote due to structural factors.
Most proposed policy changes fail. Structure often explains what is possible, but laws still require lots of individual actions & compromises to be enacted.
Most proposed policy changes fail. Structure often explains what is possible, but laws still require lots of individual actions & compromises to be enacted.
The relationships among key policymakers are the most common proximate factors in successful policy change. Their opportunities are made possible by structural factors, but the actors still have to succeed.
Here is how I end Artists of the Possible:
Here is how I end Artists of the Possible:
To translate for today, structural factors explain why Manchin's preferences matter so much & those of the most liberal actors matter so little. But individuals & relationships explain whether nothing passes or how they make the trade-offs to get to something.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
